1 in 5 women are raped at college

[Soupnazi630]

It was accurate not stupid which is why you failed to address it much less refute it.

I can agree that it was unethical but unethical does not equate to ABUSE nor does it erase the consensual nature of the affair.

I do not question the veracity of an accuser but the accused has every right to do so. That is part of due process which is not a straw man.

Rape accusers should be treated with empathy but also carefully and objectively investigated to protect people from false accusations.

Unethical does not equate abuse? Do you ever listen to yourself talk?

So if your employer made advances towards you, with the notion that if you don't comply you will get fired, that is not abuse?

Do tell.

As for your ilk who supported the Clintons, Hillary did nothing but attack the veracity of the women who came after Bill, including Lewinsky.

Hillary Clinton’s Long History of Targeting Women - Washington Free Beacon

Face it, you and the Left have been exposed as having zero morals and drowning in hypocrisy.

Your credibility is shot.,

Um yes unethical does not equal abuse.

My credibility is not shot yours is

Your analogy is a fail. If my boss made such advances and I accepted because I wanted to sleep with her we would both be doing something unethical but it would not be abuse.

Abuse by definition is criminal behavior which harms another.

Ethics are something else which you clearly need to educate yourself on.

I was clearly in partial agreement with some of what you said but your statement of Clinton abusing Lewinsky is FALSE.

It was consensual and therefore not abuse and the ethics of it does not change that fact.

The fact that it was consensual between a superior and subordinate does not change that it is sexual harassment according to federal law.

Yes it does actually.

How long have you worked for the federal government? You are spouting bullshit just like a libtard. The rules are VERY specific.

Yes they are and you are wrong about them

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Unethical does not equate abuse? Do you ever listen to yourself talk?

So if your employer made advances towards you, with the notion that if you don't comply you will get fired, that is not abuse?

Do tell.

As for your ilk who supported the Clintons, Hillary did nothing but attack the veracity of the women who came after Bill, including Lewinsky.

Hillary Clinton’s Long History of Targeting Women - Washington Free Beacon

Face it, you and the Left have been exposed as having zero morals and drowning in hypocrisy.

Your credibility is shot.,

Um yes unethical does not equal abuse.

My credibility is not shot yours is

Your analogy is a fail. If my boss made such advances and I accepted because I wanted to sleep with her we would both be doing something unethical but it would not be abuse.

Abuse by definition is criminal behavior which harms another.

Ethics are something else which you clearly need to educate yourself on.

I was clearly in partial agreement with some of what you said but your statement of Clinton abusing Lewinsky is FALSE.

It was consensual and therefore not abuse and the ethics of it does not change that fact.

The fact that it was consensual between a superior and subordinate does not change that it is sexual harassment according to federal law.

Yes it does actually.

How long have you worked for the federal government? You are spouting bullshit just like a libtard. The rules are VERY specific.

Yes they are and you are wrong about them

I had to live through Tailhook and the complete upheaval of the Navy's leadership. You are wrong, and have a great deal to learn.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Um yes unethical does not equal abuse.

My credibility is not shot yours is

Your analogy is a fail. If my boss made such advances and I accepted because I wanted to sleep with her we would both be doing something unethical but it would not be abuse.

Abuse by definition is criminal behavior which harms another.

Ethics are something else which you clearly need to educate yourself on.

I was clearly in partial agreement with some of what you said but your statement of Clinton abusing Lewinsky is FALSE.

It was consensual and therefore not abuse and the ethics of it does not change that fact.

The fact that it was consensual between a superior and subordinate does not change that it is sexual harassment according to federal law.

Yes it does actually.

How long have you worked for the federal government? You are spouting bullshit just like a libtard. The rules are VERY specific.

Yes they are and you are wrong about them

I had to live through Tailhook and the complete upheaval of the Navy's leadership. You are wrong, and have a great deal to learn.

Apples and oranges

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The fact that it was consensual between a superior and subordinate does not change that it is sexual harassment according to federal law.

Yes it does actually.

How long have you worked for the federal government? You are spouting bullshit just like a libtard. The rules are VERY specific.

Yes they are and you are wrong about them

I had to live through Tailhook and the complete upheaval of the Navy's leadership. You are wrong, and have a great deal to learn.

Apples and oranges

Any sexual relationship between a superior and subordinate is considered sexual harassment because there is no way to determine if the relationship is consensual. It protects the subordinate from predatory acts by the superior against the subordinate under the cover that the relationship is consensual. The subordinate may be threatened to say the act is consual when it it is not.

Read and learn. Stop spreading your ignorance. I have sat through far too many mandatory trainings on this topic. If you think Tailhook was an apples to oranges comparison, you have no idea what you are spewing.

 

[gipper]

It was accurate not stupid which is why you failed to address it much less refute it.

I can agree that it was unethical but unethical does not equate to ABUSE nor does it erase the consensual nature of the affair.

I do not question the veracity of an accuser but the accused has every right to do so. That is part of due process which is not a straw man.

Rape accusers should be treated with empathy but also carefully and objectively investigated to protect people from false accusations.

Unethical does not equate abuse? Do you ever listen to yourself talk?

So if your employer made advances towards you, with the notion that if you don't comply you will get fired, that is not abuse?

Do tell.

As for your ilk who supported the Clintons, Hillary did nothing but attack the veracity of the women who came after Bill, including Lewinsky.

Hillary Clinton’s Long History of Targeting Women - Washington Free Beacon

Face it, you and the Left have been exposed as having zero morals and drowning in hypocrisy.

Your credibility is shot.,

Um yes unethical does not equal abuse.

My credibility is not shot yours is

Your analogy is a fail. If my boss made such advances and I accepted because I wanted to sleep with her we would both be doing something unethical but it would not be abuse.

Abuse by definition is criminal behavior which harms another.

Ethics are something else which you clearly need to educate yourself on.

I was clearly in partial agreement with some of what you said but your statement of Clinton abusing Lewinsky is FALSE.

It was consensual and therefore not abuse and the ethics of it does not change that fact.

The fact that it was consensual between a superior and subordinate does not change that it is sexual harassment according to federal law.

Yes it does actually.

How long have you worked for the federal government? You are spouting bullshit just like a libtard. The rules are VERY specific.

He does that often. He is a huge advocate of the entirely discredited Warren Commission Report.

Many suspect he works for the CIA.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Justice Department: 1 in 5 Women Sexually Assaulted in College | Inside Higher Ed

According to the DOJ, about 1 in 5 women on college campus' around the US are sexually assaulted.

So tell me, why are liberals so gung ho about a college education since they have become the #1 enemy of the Metoomovement?

1 of 5 women in college are raped so send us your daughters!

 

[Votto]

Justice Department: 1 in 5 Women Sexually Assaulted in College | Inside Higher Ed

According to the DOJ, about 1 in 5 women on college campus' around the US are sexually assaulted.

So tell me, why are liberals so gung ho about a college education since they have become the #1 enemy of the Metoomovement?

1 of 5 women in college are wrapped so send us your daughters!

........with abortionists on the ready............

 

[Soupnazi630]

Yes it does actually.

How long have you worked for the federal government? You are spouting bullshit just like a libtard. The rules are VERY specific.

Yes they are and you are wrong about them

I had to live through Tailhook and the complete upheaval of the Navy's leadership. You are wrong, and have a great deal to learn.

Apples and oranges

Any sexual relationship between a superior and subordinate is considered sexual harassment because there is no way to determine if the relationship is consensual. It protects the subordinate from predatory acts by the superior against the subordinate under the cover that the relationship is consensual. The subordinate may be threatened to say the act is consual when it it is not.

Read and learn. Stop spreading your ignorance. I have sat through far too many mandatory trainings on this topic. If you think Tailhook was an apples to oranges comparison, you have no idea what you are spewing.

That is not what the law says sorry.

Consent can easily be established by asking if it was consensual.

The law does not allow for guesses about this which is what you are saying. You cannot guess that a person is wrong when they say they gave consent. You have asserted your opinion but not the law and you are wrong.

Tailhook is apples and oranges compared to the Lewinsky affair for many reasons. It was reasonable that Lt. Coughlin was assaulted by someone. But they could not determine who. Since we do not know who it was we have no way of establishing whether it was a superior officer. It does not even compare to Clinton Lewinsky.

Lt. Coughlin was the officer who started the tailhook scandal by promptly reporting her assault. Unfortunately when they were unable to find or identify her attacker it escelated into an insane witch hunt blaming the entire navy and even ultimately the military in general. Yes I was around for it as well and it is not relevant to your argument which is a false claim about what the law says.

It is still against regulationa for people to have sexual relations between subordinates and superiors. But those regulations are not about harrassment.

They are also the most widely and casually ignored regulations in most of the military.

There is no law saying that sex is harrassment even if consent is given and mutual between adults.

You are welcome and have been schooled

 

[Weatherman2020]

How long have you worked for the federal government? You are spouting bullshit just like a libtard. The rules are VERY specific.

Yes they are and you are wrong about them

I had to live through Tailhook and the complete upheaval of the Navy's leadership. You are wrong, and have a great deal to learn.

Apples and oranges

Any sexual relationship between a superior and subordinate is considered sexual harassment because there is no way to determine if the relationship is consensual. It protects the subordinate from predatory acts by the superior against the subordinate under the cover that the relationship is consensual. The subordinate may be threatened to say the act is consual when it it is not.

Read and learn. Stop spreading your ignorance. I have sat through far too many mandatory trainings on this topic. If you think Tailhook was an apples to oranges comparison, you have no idea what you are spewing.

That is not what the law says sorry.

Consent can easily be established by asking if it was consensual.

The law does not allow for guesses about this which is what you are saying. You cannot guess that a person is wrong when they say they gave consent. You have asserted your opinion but not the law and you are wrong.

Tailhook is apples and oranges compared to the Lewinsky affair for many reasons. It was reasonable that Lt. Coughlin was assaulted by someone. But they could not determine who. Since we do not know who it was we have no way of establishing whether it was a superior officer. It does not even compare to Clinton Lewinsky.

Lt. Coughlin was the officer who started the tailhook scandal by promptly reporting her assault. Unfortunately when they were unable to find or identify her attacker it escelated into an insane witch hunt blaming the entire navy and even ultimately the military in general. Yes I was around for it as well and it is not relevant to your argument which is a false claim about what the law says.

It is still against regulationa for people to have sexual relations between subordinates and superiors. But those regulations are not about harrassment.

They are also the most widely and casually ignored regulations in most of the military.

There is no law saying that sex is harrassment even if consent is given and mutual between adults.

You are welcome and have been schooled

But now initial consent can be overridden later after the act by regret and now it’s rape.

Ain’t Leftism grand?

WALSH: You Feel Violated After Casual Sex Because You Degraded Yourself. Not Because It Was Rape.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Yes they are and you are wrong about them

I had to live through Tailhook and the complete upheaval of the Navy's leadership. You are wrong, and have a great deal to learn.

Apples and oranges

Any sexual relationship between a superior and subordinate is considered sexual harassment because there is no way to determine if the relationship is consensual. It protects the subordinate from predatory acts by the superior against the subordinate under the cover that the relationship is consensual. The subordinate may be threatened to say the act is consual when it it is not.

Read and learn. Stop spreading your ignorance. I have sat through far too many mandatory trainings on this topic. If you think Tailhook was an apples to oranges comparison, you have no idea what you are spewing.

That is not what the law says sorry.

Consent can easily be established by asking if it was consensual.

The law does not allow for guesses about this which is what you are saying. You cannot guess that a person is wrong when they say they gave consent. You have asserted your opinion but not the law and you are wrong.

Tailhook is apples and oranges compared to the Lewinsky affair for many reasons. It was reasonable that Lt. Coughlin was assaulted by someone. But they could not determine who. Since we do not know who it was we have no way of establishing whether it was a superior officer. It does not even compare to Clinton Lewinsky.

Lt. Coughlin was the officer who started the tailhook scandal by promptly reporting her assault. Unfortunately when they were unable to find or identify her attacker it escelated into an insane witch hunt blaming the entire navy and even ultimately the military in general. Yes I was around for it as well and it is not relevant to your argument which is a false claim about what the law says.

It is still against regulationa for people to have sexual relations between subordinates and superiors. But those regulations are not about harrassment.

They are also the most widely and casually ignored regulations in most of the military.

There is no law saying that sex is harrassment even if consent is given and mutual between adults.

You are welcome and have been schooled

But now initial consent can be overridden later after the act by regret and now it’s rape.

Ain’t Leftism grand?

WALSH: You Feel Violated After Casual Sex Because You Degraded Yourself. Not Because It Was Rape.

Very true and very disturbing.

Of course that is not what the specific law about harrassment says which is what I was discussing.

But you are correct. Even before the metoo movement started we saw the rise of this line of thinking such as mattress girl.

Men may well behave badly at times such as lying to get laid. For example a man tells a girl he loves her and wishes to marry her and this convinces her to consent to sex. Then he dumps her because he just wanted the sex and lied to get it

As I pointed out to another poster men who do this may be acting unethically but they are not abusing or raping anyone.

The left however would prefer to call it rape. Or even a woman who just agrees to sex for any of a hundred reasons, including being horny, and then feels ashamed of herself.

The media seldom pays attention but there are many men suffering this fate. She makes it clear she agrees to sex and is into it and then after the sex is over she says nope I changed my mind and you raped/assaulted me.

This is also why certain massively ignorant people, such as JoeB131, are ludicrously out of touch with reality when they pull stats out of their ass like only 1% of accusers lie about rape.

Regardless of how you feel about trump his warning to men in general was correct. All men in general are in danger of being falsely accused. Just an accusation alone can destroy a persons life. Which is why Devos is a hero for rescinding the title IX requirments.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

How long have you worked for the federal government? You are spouting bullshit just like a libtard. The rules are VERY specific.

Yes they are and you are wrong about them

I had to live through Tailhook and the complete upheaval of the Navy's leadership. You are wrong, and have a great deal to learn.

Apples and oranges

Any sexual relationship between a superior and subordinate is considered sexual harassment because there is no way to determine if the relationship is consensual. It protects the subordinate from predatory acts by the superior against the subordinate under the cover that the relationship is consensual. The subordinate may be threatened to say the act is consual when it it is not.

Read and learn. Stop spreading your ignorance. I have sat through far too many mandatory trainings on this topic. If you think Tailhook was an apples to oranges comparison, you have no idea what you are spewing.

That is not what the law says sorry.

Consent can easily be established by asking if it was consensual.

The law does not allow for guesses about this which is what you are saying. You cannot guess that a person is wrong when they say they gave consent. You have asserted your opinion but not the law and you are wrong.

Tailhook is apples and oranges compared to the Lewinsky affair for many reasons. It was reasonable that Lt. Coughlin was assaulted by someone. But they could not determine who. Since we do not know who it was we have no way of establishing whether it was a superior officer. It does not even compare to Clinton Lewinsky.

Lt. Coughlin was the officer who started the tailhook scandal by promptly reporting her assault. Unfortunately when they were unable to find or identify her attacker it escelated into an insane witch hunt blaming the entire navy and even ultimately the military in general. Yes I was around for it as well and it is not relevant to your argument which is a false claim about what the law says.

It is still against regulationa for people to have sexual relations between subordinates and superiors. But those regulations are not about harrassment.

They are also the most widely and casually ignored regulations in most of the military.

There is no law saying that sex is harrassment even if consent is given and mutual between adults.

You are welcome and have been schooled

I work for the US Government as a contractor for the US Army. Guess what type of training we are required to take?

You are so full of shit your eyes are brown from the backup. It is considered sexual harassment. WTF do you call it, dumbass?

 

[Soupnazi630]

Yes they are and you are wrong about them

I had to live through Tailhook and the complete upheaval of the Navy's leadership. You are wrong, and have a great deal to learn.

Apples and oranges

Any sexual relationship between a superior and subordinate is considered sexual harassment because there is no way to determine if the relationship is consensual. It protects the subordinate from predatory acts by the superior against the subordinate under the cover that the relationship is consensual. The subordinate may be threatened to say the act is consual when it it is not.

Read and learn. Stop spreading your ignorance. I have sat through far too many mandatory trainings on this topic. If you think Tailhook was an apples to oranges comparison, you have no idea what you are spewing.

That is not what the law says sorry.

Consent can easily be established by asking if it was consensual.

The law does not allow for guesses about this which is what you are saying. You cannot guess that a person is wrong when they say they gave consent. You have asserted your opinion but not the law and you are wrong.

Tailhook is apples and oranges compared to the Lewinsky affair for many reasons. It was reasonable that Lt. Coughlin was assaulted by someone. But they could not determine who. Since we do not know who it was we have no way of establishing whether it was a superior officer. It does not even compare to Clinton Lewinsky.

Lt. Coughlin was the officer who started the tailhook scandal by promptly reporting her assault. Unfortunately when they were unable to find or identify her attacker it escelated into an insane witch hunt blaming the entire navy and even ultimately the military in general. Yes I was around for it as well and it is not relevant to your argument which is a false claim about what the law says.

It is still against regulationa for people to have sexual relations between subordinates and superiors. But those regulations are not about harrassment.

They are also the most widely and casually ignored regulations in most of the military.

There is no law saying that sex is harrassment even if consent is given and mutual between adults.

You are welcome and have been schooled

I work for the US Government as a contractor for the US Army. Guess what type of training we are required to take?

You are so full of shit your eyes are brown from the backup. It is considered sexual harassment. WTF do you call it, dumbass?

Yes they are and you are wrong about them

I had to live through Tailhook and the complete upheaval of the Navy's leadership. You are wrong, and have a great deal to learn.

Apples and oranges

Any sexual relationship between a superior and subordinate is considered sexual harassment because there is no way to determine if the relationship is consensual. It protects the subordinate from predatory acts by the superior against the subordinate under the cover that the relationship is consensual. The subordinate may be threatened to say the act is consual when it it is not.

Read and learn. Stop spreading your ignorance. I have sat through far too many mandatory trainings on this topic. If you think Tailhook was an apples to oranges comparison, you have no idea what you are spewing.

That is not what the law says sorry.

Consent can easily be established by asking if it was consensual.

The law does not allow for guesses about this which is what you are saying. You cannot guess that a person is wrong when they say they gave consent. You have asserted your opinion but not the law and you are wrong.

Tailhook is apples and oranges compared to the Lewinsky affair for many reasons. It was reasonable that Lt. Coughlin was assaulted by someone. But they could not determine who. Since we do not know who it was we have no way of establishing whether it was a superior officer. It does not even compare to Clinton Lewinsky.

Lt. Coughlin was the officer who started the tailhook scandal by promptly reporting her assault. Unfortunately when they were unable to find or identify her attacker it escelated into an insane witch hunt blaming the entire navy and even ultimately the military in general. Yes I was around for it as well and it is not relevant to your argument which is a false claim about what the law says.

It is still against regulationa for people to have sexual relations between subordinates and superiors. But those regulations are not about harrassment.

They are also the most widely and casually ignored regulations in most of the military.

There is no law saying that sex is harrassment even if consent is given and mutual between adults.

You are welcome and have been schooled

I work for the US Government as a contractor for the US Army. Guess what type of training we are required to take?

You are so full of shit your eyes are brown from the backup. It is considered sexual harassment. WTF do you call it, dumbass?

Yes I have had the same training and you are wrong. A consensual relationship is consensual. It is not made into an illegal act by a third party saying otherwise.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I had to live through Tailhook and the complete upheaval of the Navy's leadership. You are wrong, and have a great deal to learn.

Apples and oranges

Any sexual relationship between a superior and subordinate is considered sexual harassment because there is no way to determine if the relationship is consensual. It protects the subordinate from predatory acts by the superior against the subordinate under the cover that the relationship is consensual. The subordinate may be threatened to say the act is consual when it it is not.

Read and learn. Stop spreading your ignorance. I have sat through far too many mandatory trainings on this topic. If you think Tailhook was an apples to oranges comparison, you have no idea what you are spewing.

That is not what the law says sorry.

Consent can easily be established by asking if it was consensual.

The law does not allow for guesses about this which is what you are saying. You cannot guess that a person is wrong when they say they gave consent. You have asserted your opinion but not the law and you are wrong.

Tailhook is apples and oranges compared to the Lewinsky affair for many reasons. It was reasonable that Lt. Coughlin was assaulted by someone. But they could not determine who. Since we do not know who it was we have no way of establishing whether it was a superior officer. It does not even compare to Clinton Lewinsky.

Lt. Coughlin was the officer who started the tailhook scandal by promptly reporting her assault. Unfortunately when they were unable to find or identify her attacker it escelated into an insane witch hunt blaming the entire navy and even ultimately the military in general. Yes I was around for it as well and it is not relevant to your argument which is a false claim about what the law says.

It is still against regulationa for people to have sexual relations between subordinates and superiors. But those regulations are not about harrassment.

They are also the most widely and casually ignored regulations in most of the military.

There is no law saying that sex is harrassment even if consent is given and mutual between adults.

You are welcome and have been schooled

I work for the US Government as a contractor for the US Army. Guess what type of training we are required to take?

You are so full of shit your eyes are brown from the backup. It is considered sexual harassment. WTF do you call it, dumbass?

I had to live through Tailhook and the complete upheaval of the Navy's leadership. You are wrong, and have a great deal to learn.

Apples and oranges

Any sexual relationship between a superior and subordinate is considered sexual harassment because there is no way to determine if the relationship is consensual. It protects the subordinate from predatory acts by the superior against the subordinate under the cover that the relationship is consensual. The subordinate may be threatened to say the act is consual when it it is not.

Read and learn. Stop spreading your ignorance. I have sat through far too many mandatory trainings on this topic. If you think Tailhook was an apples to oranges comparison, you have no idea what you are spewing.

That is not what the law says sorry.

Consent can easily be established by asking if it was consensual.

The law does not allow for guesses about this which is what you are saying. You cannot guess that a person is wrong when they say they gave consent. You have asserted your opinion but not the law and you are wrong.

Tailhook is apples and oranges compared to the Lewinsky affair for many reasons. It was reasonable that Lt. Coughlin was assaulted by someone. But they could not determine who. Since we do not know who it was we have no way of establishing whether it was a superior officer. It does not even compare to Clinton Lewinsky.

Lt. Coughlin was the officer who started the tailhook scandal by promptly reporting her assault. Unfortunately when they were unable to find or identify her attacker it escelated into an insane witch hunt blaming the entire navy and even ultimately the military in general. Yes I was around for it as well and it is not relevant to your argument which is a false claim about what the law says.

It is still against regulationa for people to have sexual relations between subordinates and superiors. But those regulations are not about harrassment.

They are also the most widely and casually ignored regulations in most of the military.

There is no law saying that sex is harrassment even if consent is given and mutual between adults.

You are welcome and have been schooled

I work for the US Government as a contractor for the US Army. Guess what type of training we are required to take?

You are so full of shit your eyes are brown from the backup. It is considered sexual harassment. WTF do you call it, dumbass?

Yes I have had the same training and you are wrong. A consensual relationship is consensual. It is not made into an illegal act by a third party saying otherwise.

Prove it! You made the asinine claim. Let's see it in writing!

I will await your backpedaling and deflection that I know are about to follow, because you simply cannot do it!

 

[Soupnazi630]

Apples and oranges

Any sexual relationship between a superior and subordinate is considered sexual harassment because there is no way to determine if the relationship is consensual. It protects the subordinate from predatory acts by the superior against the subordinate under the cover that the relationship is consensual. The subordinate may be threatened to say the act is consual when it it is not.

Read and learn. Stop spreading your ignorance. I have sat through far too many mandatory trainings on this topic. If you think Tailhook was an apples to oranges comparison, you have no idea what you are spewing.

That is not what the law says sorry.

Consent can easily be established by asking if it was consensual.

The law does not allow for guesses about this which is what you are saying. You cannot guess that a person is wrong when they say they gave consent. You have asserted your opinion but not the law and you are wrong.

Tailhook is apples and oranges compared to the Lewinsky affair for many reasons. It was reasonable that Lt. Coughlin was assaulted by someone. But they could not determine who. Since we do not know who it was we have no way of establishing whether it was a superior officer. It does not even compare to Clinton Lewinsky.

Lt. Coughlin was the officer who started the tailhook scandal by promptly reporting her assault. Unfortunately when they were unable to find or identify her attacker it escelated into an insane witch hunt blaming the entire navy and even ultimately the military in general. Yes I was around for it as well and it is not relevant to your argument which is a false claim about what the law says.

It is still against regulationa for people to have sexual relations between subordinates and superiors. But those regulations are not about harrassment.

They are also the most widely and casually ignored regulations in most of the military.

There is no law saying that sex is harrassment even if consent is given and mutual between adults.

You are welcome and have been schooled

I work for the US Government as a contractor for the US Army. Guess what type of training we are required to take?

You are so full of shit your eyes are brown from the backup. It is considered sexual harassment. WTF do you call it, dumbass?

Apples and oranges

Any sexual relationship between a superior and subordinate is considered sexual harassment because there is no way to determine if the relationship is consensual. It protects the subordinate from predatory acts by the superior against the subordinate under the cover that the relationship is consensual. The subordinate may be threatened to say the act is consual when it it is not.

Read and learn. Stop spreading your ignorance. I have sat through far too many mandatory trainings on this topic. If you think Tailhook was an apples to oranges comparison, you have no idea what you are spewing.

That is not what the law says sorry.

Consent can easily be established by asking if it was consensual.

The law does not allow for guesses about this which is what you are saying. You cannot guess that a person is wrong when they say they gave consent. You have asserted your opinion but not the law and you are wrong.

Tailhook is apples and oranges compared to the Lewinsky affair for many reasons. It was reasonable that Lt. Coughlin was assaulted by someone. But they could not determine who. Since we do not know who it was we have no way of establishing whether it was a superior officer. It does not even compare to Clinton Lewinsky.

Lt. Coughlin was the officer who started the tailhook scandal by promptly reporting her assault. Unfortunately when they were unable to find or identify her attacker it escelated into an insane witch hunt blaming the entire navy and even ultimately the military in general. Yes I was around for it as well and it is not relevant to your argument which is a false claim about what the law says.

It is still against regulationa for people to have sexual relations between subordinates and superiors. But those regulations are not about harrassment.

They are also the most widely and casually ignored regulations in most of the military.

There is no law saying that sex is harrassment even if consent is given and mutual between adults.

You are welcome and have been schooled

I work for the US Government as a contractor for the US Army. Guess what type of training we are required to take?

You are so full of shit your eyes are brown from the backup. It is considered sexual harassment. WTF do you call it, dumbass?

Yes I have had the same training and you are wrong. A consensual relationship is consensual. It is not made into an illegal act by a third party saying otherwise.

Prove it! You made the asinine claim. Let's see it in writing!

I will await your backpedaling and deflection that I know are about to follow, because you simply cannot do it!

Um wrong thing to say youngster.

You are making the positive assertion about what the law says.

I state the opposite which is a negative and one cannot prove a negative.

This places the burden of proof exclusively on you so cite the law which makes a consensual relationship harrassment.

No one can prove what a law does NOT say because what it does not say does not exist to be demonstrated.

No deflection or backpedaling here.

You are wrong ignorant and uninformed and only you have the burden of proof.

 

[sparky]

1 out of 5?

I'll wager 3 out of 5 woke up the next day deciding to rewrite history

~S~

 

[JoeB131]

Tailhook is apples and oranges compared to the Lewinsky affair for many reasons. It was reasonable that Lt. Coughlin was assaulted by someone. But they could not determine who. Since we do not know who it was we have no way of establishing whether it was a superior officer. It does not even compare to Clinton Lewinsky.

You are right.

Tailhook was an attempted gang rape. The fact the Navy tried to cover it up was beyond disgusting and a lot of careers deserved to end over it.

Clinton-Lewinsky was a relationship between two consenting adults.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Tailhook is apples and oranges compared to the Lewinsky affair for many reasons. It was reasonable that Lt. Coughlin was assaulted by someone. But they could not determine who. Since we do not know who it was we have no way of establishing whether it was a superior officer. It does not even compare to Clinton Lewinsky.

You are right.

Tailhook was an attempted gang rape. The fact the Navy tried to cover it up was beyond disgusting and a lot of careers deserved to end over it.

Clinton-Lewinsky was a relationship between two consenting adults.

No tailhook was not an attempted gangrape.

To say it was is a slanderous lie.

The Navy did not attempt to cover up anything. Certainly individual perpetrators tried to cover up but that is not the Navy as a whole.